Obama has warned Trump not to overuse executive orders.
Think about that.
Obama say that. Barack Obama.
And in his typical rewriting of history, Obama claims that his preferred course of action was to work with Congress instead of using executive orders.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Sunday, November 27, 2016
The meaningless popular vote
Liberals are whining about how Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote. To them, the pesky Electoral College has robbed them of victory.
This is nonsense for many reasons, including:
1. It's typical liberal hypocrisy. If the situation were reversed, they'd be screaming that the Electoral College is the law and it's essentially treason to question it.
2. The Electoral College IS the law.
3. It's also hypocritical because in the days leading up to the election, they ridiculed and savaged Trump for theoretically not happily accepting the results of the election.
4. People keep talking like the Electoral College system has failed because it has yielded a different result than the popular vote would have. But this is misguided. The Electoral College isn't designed to necessarily yield the same result as the popular vote. Surely this is obvious. Nobody would concoct a complicated system to yield the same result as the popular vote. They'd just use the popular vote.
5. The Electoral College wasn't created merely to facilitate voting in a society with eighteenth century technology. Much like the Senate and the House, it was created to provide a balance between power for the people and power for the states (which is why each state gets a number of Electoral College votes equal to its number of senators plus its number of representatives). It exists to prevent a handful of population centres from determining the results of every presidential election.
6. Hillary and Trump knew the rules going in. They knew you had to win the Electoral College. And they campaigned accordingly. Saying now that "I would have won if the rules were different!" is utterly irrelevant. Anyone can dream up a new set of rules that would have made them win. Yawn.
7. But even if we accept the thought experiment that the winner of the popular vote should be president, how can liberals claim that Hillary would automatically have won? Under that system, both Hillary and Trump would have campaigned differently. We really have no idea how that would have played out. The liberal position is a fantasy where the rules are new but Trump (and only Trump) is constrained to play exactly as if the old rules were in effect.
8. A second reason it's unfair to say that Hillary would automatically have won the popular vote under these new rules is that not only would candidate behaviour be different if the popular vote system were in place, voter behaviour would be different, too. How many conservatives didn't bother voting in California because they knew their vote was irrelevant? But under the popular vote system, their vote would count. I realize that the reverse argument could be made in conservative states, but that doesn't cancel this concern. California's huge population (and New York's, etc.) skews things in the liberals' favour. There are vastly more disheartened conservative voters in California than disheartened liberal voters in Kansas. You might have counter arguments, but the point is that we can't say that if the popular vote system were in place, voters would be guaranteed to behave the same way as they do now.
The moral is: liberals are hypocritical sore losers who need to grow up.
This is nonsense for many reasons, including:
1. It's typical liberal hypocrisy. If the situation were reversed, they'd be screaming that the Electoral College is the law and it's essentially treason to question it.
2. The Electoral College IS the law.
3. It's also hypocritical because in the days leading up to the election, they ridiculed and savaged Trump for theoretically not happily accepting the results of the election.
4. People keep talking like the Electoral College system has failed because it has yielded a different result than the popular vote would have. But this is misguided. The Electoral College isn't designed to necessarily yield the same result as the popular vote. Surely this is obvious. Nobody would concoct a complicated system to yield the same result as the popular vote. They'd just use the popular vote.
5. The Electoral College wasn't created merely to facilitate voting in a society with eighteenth century technology. Much like the Senate and the House, it was created to provide a balance between power for the people and power for the states (which is why each state gets a number of Electoral College votes equal to its number of senators plus its number of representatives). It exists to prevent a handful of population centres from determining the results of every presidential election.
6. Hillary and Trump knew the rules going in. They knew you had to win the Electoral College. And they campaigned accordingly. Saying now that "I would have won if the rules were different!" is utterly irrelevant. Anyone can dream up a new set of rules that would have made them win. Yawn.
7. But even if we accept the thought experiment that the winner of the popular vote should be president, how can liberals claim that Hillary would automatically have won? Under that system, both Hillary and Trump would have campaigned differently. We really have no idea how that would have played out. The liberal position is a fantasy where the rules are new but Trump (and only Trump) is constrained to play exactly as if the old rules were in effect.
8. A second reason it's unfair to say that Hillary would automatically have won the popular vote under these new rules is that not only would candidate behaviour be different if the popular vote system were in place, voter behaviour would be different, too. How many conservatives didn't bother voting in California because they knew their vote was irrelevant? But under the popular vote system, their vote would count. I realize that the reverse argument could be made in conservative states, but that doesn't cancel this concern. California's huge population (and New York's, etc.) skews things in the liberals' favour. There are vastly more disheartened conservative voters in California than disheartened liberal voters in Kansas. You might have counter arguments, but the point is that we can't say that if the popular vote system were in place, voters would be guaranteed to behave the same way as they do now.
The moral is: liberals are hypocritical sore losers who need to grow up.
Monday, November 21, 2016
One trick Nazi ponies
The Left is unable to win arguments based on a discussion of the facts, which is why their sole weapon is ad hominem attacks. But they're not even good at that. They only have one version of their one weapon: all-out hysterical panic. Very few of them are capable of calm disagreement. As soon as they run across a conservative, they immediately bypass all intermediate levels of disagreement and jump right to "YOU'RE HITLER! Now I need to go hide in a safe zone and cry and get aroma therapy!" Their textbook is
In the aftermath of the destruction of the Democratic party that was the 2016 election, a (very) few leftists temporarily seemed to grasp that their Hitler strategy wasn't working now that most of America has seen the MSM for the leftist shills that they are.
But it's good to see that this epiphany lasted about three days. Then Trump appointed Bannon and "BANNON IS A NAZI!!!!!!"
And just to prove that the REALLY have learned nothing at all ... HOWARD DEAN? Really?!
In the aftermath of the destruction of the Democratic party that was the 2016 election, a (very) few leftists temporarily seemed to grasp that their Hitler strategy wasn't working now that most of America has seen the MSM for the leftist shills that they are.
But it's good to see that this epiphany lasted about three days. Then Trump appointed Bannon and "BANNON IS A NAZI!!!!!!"
And just to prove that the REALLY have learned nothing at all ... HOWARD DEAN? Really?!
"No, no ... thanks Barack. No need to endorse me."
Obama has the reverse Midas touch. Oh sure, he's good at getting things for himself. But that's about it. Just to list a few examples:
- Securing the Olympics for Chicago - failed
- Campaigning for various other Democrats in 2012 - failed so consistently that various Democrats refused to let him come campaign for them
- Led the Dems to devastating congressional and state losses in 2010
- Led the Dems to devastating congressional and state losses in 2014
- Worked against Netanyahu's re-election - failed
- Spoke out against Brexit - failed
- Campaigned for Hillary - failed
- Led the Dems to devastating congressional and state losses in 2016. This one was especially impressive. The Republicans now control the White House and both houses of Congress. Furthermore, they have a record number of state legislatures. Oh, and two-thirds of the governorships. YAY BARACK!!
Thank Hillary for the guns
I've read several times now that the U.S. has had month after month of record gun sales as people fear that Obama's (and Hillary's) war on the second amendment will make it hard/impossible for them to buy guns.
Now that the anti-Constitution party lost the election, I guess the end result is that we have Obama and Hillary to thank for a massive increase in the amount of guns in the country. In their war against the second amendment, the second amendment won.
We should point this out to liberals as often as possible.
Now that the anti-Constitution party lost the election, I guess the end result is that we have Obama and Hillary to thank for a massive increase in the amount of guns in the country. In their war against the second amendment, the second amendment won.
We should point this out to liberals as often as possible.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
The hypocrisy and hate of the left
Riots. Vandalism. Assaults. Calls to assassinate Trump or rape his wife. All of this from people who simultaneously and sanctimoniously claim that they're loving and it's the Republicans who are haters. Only the left would engage in such behaviour on this scale and only the left would have the nerve to be so hypocritical.
And the media gives them a pass.
If mobs had taken to the streets after Obama's election in 2008 with similar behaviour and threats against him and Michelle, does anyone think the media would have given them a pass? The MSM would have (rightly) denounced it 24/7. But when such behaviour is directed at Republicans, the MSM is complicitly silent.
The only bright side is that, as already mentioned, the MSM and Dems (but I repeat myself) have decided to double-down on the despicable tactics that lost them this election.
And the media gives them a pass.
If mobs had taken to the streets after Obama's election in 2008 with similar behaviour and threats against him and Michelle, does anyone think the media would have given them a pass? The MSM would have (rightly) denounced it 24/7. But when such behaviour is directed at Republicans, the MSM is complicitly silent.
The only bright side is that, as already mentioned, the MSM and Dems (but I repeat myself) have decided to double-down on the despicable tactics that lost them this election.
Still waiting...
The sanctimonious MSM is quick to press Trump to denounce every person or group who says or does something inappropriate in his name (even though most of those people are Dem or MSM plants attempting to make Trump look bad), but you'll notice that they don't demand Obama or Hillary do the same.
With leftist supporters rioting all over the country, I've yet to hear one voice from the MSM call upon Obama or Hillary to denounce these miscreants or to even urge them to stop their vandalism.
With leftist supporters rioting all over the country, I've yet to hear one voice from the MSM call upon Obama or Hillary to denounce these miscreants or to even urge them to stop their vandalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)